Date of filing : 17-06-2011
Date of Disposal: 22-05-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Kum. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 22nd day of May, 2012
C.C.NO. 113 /2011
Between:
1. N.Prabhakar S/o Late N.C.H. Reddy
Industrialist, D.No.2-200, II Road
New Town, Anantapur – 515 004.
- N.Phani Shashank S/o N.Prabhakar
C/o D.No.2-200, II Road
New Town, Anantapur – 515 004. …. Complainants
Vs.
1. The Chief General Manager,
Business, Development & Marketing
Directorate, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 116.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
A.P.Circle, Hyderabad.
3. The Post Master General
City Region, Chennai – 600 002.
4. The Post Master,
Flowers Road Post Office,
Chennai – 600 084.
5. The Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Anantapur – 515 001. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.Harikrishna, advocate for the complainants, opposite party No.1 is called absent and Sri T.Bharathbushana Reddy, Advocate for the opposite parties 2 to 5 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum. M.Sreelatha,Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 5 to direct them to pay Rs.10,565/- towards loss due to cancellation of Air Tickets, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.63,450/- towards loss of wages for one week and Rs.5,000/- towards legal and other expenses total Rs.1,29,015/- and also direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to take necessary steps for example to take specific measures on printing of instructions on labels on packets, thereby not leading to delay in delivery, causing damages to the consumers at large .
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The 1st complainant is permanent resident of Anantapur and 2nd complainant is his son and he is working as Analyst in Foreign Company Sagitec Solutions LLC, U.S.A. He came down to home town and go back to his duties had presented himself with Passport at American Consulate, Chennai for VISA Stamping. He took the services of VFS Global Services for processing and delivering the Passport and other related documents from the Consulate. The 2nd complainant, who temporarily stayed at Chennai in care of Mr.Prakash, D.No.4H, Professor Subramanian Street, Chennai came back to Anantapur leaving instructions to receive the packet, which is expected from the consulate through VFS Global Services and send the same to the address at Anantapur by Speed Post. At the instance of the complainants, Mr.Prakash booked the packet, which was received from VFS Global services containing Passport at the 2nd complainant by paying Rs.67/- vide Speed Post No.ET-056647904 on 24-05-2011 at 14.45 from the Post Office Counter at opposite party No.4, who is in the City Regional under opposite party No.3. After receiving information from Mr.Prakash, the 2nd complainant purchased Air Tickets to travel from Bangalore to Washington on 27-05-2011 with a hope that the packet may reached on 25-05-2011 or 26-05-2011 as it was booked on 24-05-2011.But surprised to the complainants, the packet not reached even after 48 hours at its booking and the 2nd complainant has to report his duties on 30-05-2011 and the journey plan involved with huge amounts. The 2nd complainant received the packet on 30-05-2011. So he has to cancel his air tickets booked, which was scheduled to travel on 27-05-2011 from Bangalore to Washington DC due to negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. The complainants also mentioned that there is clear negligence on the part of the opposite parties as the packet booked at Chennai to Anantapur , S.P. to Kurnool Hub was bagged to Kannur (Kerala) on 26-05-2011. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1, 3 & 4 and they are jointly and severally liable and no claim is made against the opposite party No.5. The complainants claiming compensation of Rs.1,29,015/- on different heads.
3. The opposite party No.5 filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainants. This opposite party submits that one Prakash Gupta booked a packet in 4th opposite party Post Office to the complainant No.1 and the said packet contains Passport of the complainant No.2 is not to the knowledge of this opposite party and also denied the booking of Air tickets from Bangalore to Washington on 27-05-2011. This opposite party stated that normally Speed Post article booked at Chennai at 17 hours are being delivered at Kurnool in D+2 norms i.e. second day from the date of posting. The complaint was made under Web No.100000-06714 on 26-05-2011 and this opposite party replied over Web about the matter is looked into. The article was received at Chennai Set-II on the same day and was correctly sorted to Kurnool Hub and kept ready for dispatch. But due to work pressure and hurry in closing of bags the article was included in Speed Post Bag at Kannur (Kerala) instead of Kurnool by error. The article was received on 26-05-2011 at Kannur and on the same day dispatched to Kurnool, it was received on 29-05-2011, send it to Georgepet on 29-05-2011 due to Sunday it was delivered to addressee on 30-05-2011. The liabilities of the opposite parties will be subject to the rules and sections of I.P.O. Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action and the 1st complainant has nothing to do with this complaint as there is no cause of action for him and dismiss the complaint.
4. The opposite parties 2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.5.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainants is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to
5?
3. Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
4. Whether the complainants are entitled for the amount claimed?
5. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainants, the evidence on affidavit of the 1st complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A7 documents. No documents have been marked on behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 5. The counsel for the complainants filed written arguments.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1 :- The 1st complainant mentioned in his affidavit that he is resident of Anantapur, II Road, Anantapur for the past 60 years and the 2nd complainant is his son. The 2nd complainant is working as business Analyst in a Foreign Company, US.A. The 2nd complainant came down to Anantapur for a short break and presented his Passport at American Consulate, Chennai for U.S.A. Stamping and he took services VFS Global Services for processing and delivering the related documents to Anantapur through his house at Anantapur and the 2nd complainant instructed Mr.Prakash at Chennai to send the packet to the 1st complainant and Mr.Prakash sent it the same to Anantapur address on 24-05-2011 at 14.45 hours from 4th opposite party who is City Region under 3rd opposite party. The 2nd complainant booked Air Tickets from Anantapur through his Email. It is not denied by the opposite party except denying that the 1st complainant has nothing to do with the claim. The Air Tickets booked from Anantapur through G-mail and Passport sent to his permanent address. Hence, the complainant comes under consumer and the complaint is maintainable.
9. POINT NO.2:- About deficiency of service, the complainants counsel argued that the 2nd complainant booked air tickets to travel from Bangalore to Washington on 27-05-2011 with a hope that the Passport Packet may reach him on or before 27-05-2011 as the opposite party canvassed through Websites that Speed Post Services are very quick and fast and the packets booked in Speed Post will reach within 24 hours, but surprised to the complainants, the packet reached him on 30-05-2011 only after the complainant No.2 made several attempts and complaints to the opposite parties. The 2nd complainant filed Ex.A4 to prove his attempts to receive the packet, he contacted on sites and got information that the 3rd opposite party sent the packet on 24-05-2011 to Kannur (Kerala) instead of sending to Kurnool Hub, though it is clearly mentioned in Speed Post Cover i.e. address of the complainants at Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh) i.e. in Ex.A2. The counsel for the complainants argued that the 2nd complainant waited to receive the packet till 26-05-2011, when he has not received the packet, he issued notice to the 5th opposite party on 27-05-2011 (Ex.A5) and reply notice dt.01-06-2011 given by the 5th opposite party that the inconvenience caused is very much regretted etc., The reply notice clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 3 & 4.
10. The 5th opposite party in the counter stated that they have no knowledge about the booking of packet with 4th opposite party and that packet contains Passport of the 2nd complainant and the 2nd complainant booked Air Tickets to travel from Bangalore to Washington. Though the opposite parties 1 to 4 adopting the counter of 5th opposite party, they are denying the transactions between the opposite parties 1, 3 & 4. It is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 3 & 4 as the 2nd complainant forced to cancel his Air Tickets worth Rs.10,565/- because of negligent act of the opposite parties 3 & 4. Accordingly this point answered in favour of the complainants.
11. POINT NO.3 :- About the jurisdiction, the 1st complainant is resident of Anantapur and 2nd complainant is his son, who came to Anantapur from U.S.A. and he went to Chennai for stamping Visa and processing and he informed one of his relative by name Prakash to send the Passport to his permanent address at Anantapur where the 1st complainant resides. The 2nd complainant issued notice to the 5th opposite party from Anantapur and the 2nd complainant booked his Air Tickets from Anantapur and he planned to travel on 27-05-2011 from Anantapur all are within the jurisdiction of this Forum. This point is answered in favour of the complainants and they can file the complaint before this Forum.
12. POINT NO.4 :- About the claim the complainants, they claimed a sum of Rs.1,29,015/- under different heads and the counsel for the complainants argued that due to non receipt of the Passport packet in time the 2nd complainant forced to cancel his air tickets worth of Rs.10,565/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and loss of wages for one week Rs.63,450/- and legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
13. The counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 5 argued that the claim of the complainants is excessive and not entitled the same. He also argued that the liability of the opposite parties will be subject to the rules and section of I.P.O. Act.
Rule 66B of Post Office Speed Post Rules read as follows:
“ In case of any delay of domestic speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Post from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid.
In the event of loss of domestic speed post article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/-, whichever is less. “
Rule restricts the amount to double the amount of speed post charges.
14. POINTNO.5:- In the result the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.134/- towards double the speed post charges and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The said amount shall be payable by the opposite parties 3 & 4 to the complainants within a month from the date of this order.
The complaint against the opposite parties 1, 2 & 5 is hereby dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 22nd day of May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT ,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES:
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 – Cover of packet from Passport Delivery Service VFS Global Services
Pvt. Ltd., to the 2nd complainant.
2. Ex.A2 - Cover of the packet addressed to the 1st complainant with seal and stickers
of the opposite parties booked on 24-05-2011 (received on 30-05-2011).
3. Ex.A3 - India Post Tracking sheet for the packets booked.
4. Ex.A4 - Web based customer grievance handling system complaint No.100000
06714.
5. Ex.A5 - Office copy of notice dt.27-05-2011 sent by the 2nd complainant to the
5th opposite party.
6. Ex.A6 - Air booking ticket and cancellation reports.
7. Ex.A7 - Reply notice dt.01-06-2011 issued by the 5th opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- NIL -
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
Typed by JPNN
